5-JH26-8 Score Sheet for Information Purposes Only.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- JH26-8 Mohrland Adit and Collection Box Project
- Solicitation number
- JH26-8
- Issued by
- Duchesne County, Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) #JH26-8 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and Division of Oil, Gas and Mining for the Mohrland Adit and Collection Box Project in Emery County, Utah. The project seeks professional engineering services to conduct abandoned mine reclamation, with all deliverables due by June 1st, 2026. The contract term is five years, and the procurement will follow Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15 for Design Professional Service Providers and Consultants. The evaluation will use a technical scoring system ranging from 0-5, with six primary scorable criteria including investigation and field inventory, water rights research, engineering and design, construction specifications, project summary, and examples of previous work.
The procurement will select the vendor with the highest technical score for contract negotiations, with compensation to be determined fair and reasonable by the procurement officer. If agreement cannot be reached with the top-scoring vendor, negotiations will proceed to the next highest-scoring qualified professional. The scoresheet indicates a total possible score of 500 points across six technical criteria, with weightings ranging from 10% to 20% per category. Vendors are instructed not to include pricing in their qualifications, and the selection will be based solely on technical merit and demonstrated capability to complete the abandoned mine reclamation project.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment C Technical Scorable Criteria Questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3-Attachment A Agency Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) Document.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Lump
| RFSQ EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |
| #JH26-8 | |
| Mohrland Adit and Collection Box PROJECT | |
| Score will be assigned as follows: | |
| 0 = Fail: the STATEMENT fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to missing information | |
| Offerer: | 1 = Poor: the STATEMENT inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information |
| 2 = Unsatisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in an unsatisfactory manner | |
| Evaluator: | 3 = Satisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in a minimum satisfactory manner |
| 4 = Good: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST and in some respects exceeds them | |
| Date: | 5 = Excellent: the STATEMENT addresses and exceeds all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST |
Technical Scorable Criteria RFSQ Section Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned 1 Investigation and Field Inventory:
1.a STATEMENT and technical approach show an understanding of OWNER‘s goals.
1.b STATEMENT shows direct experience and expertise with abandoned mine inventory and site investigation. Understanding of a variety of abandoned mine reclamation technologies with knowledge of the limitations and advantages of each. Exhibits an understanding of cultural resources, legal concerns/needs and their technical ramifications.
| 1.c Staff qualifications | Scope of Work B.2, B.3, B.4 | 20 | 20% | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 2 | Water Rights Research: |
2.a STATEMENT shows the ability to research and accurately determine water rights and ownership of water leaving the mine .
2.b Direct experience and expertise in water rights and records research, particularly with water.
2.c Staff qualifications
| Scope of Work B.7 | 10 | 10% | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 3 | Engineering and Design: |
3.a STATEMENT demonstrates direct experience and expertise in design and engineering of abandoned mine reclamation projects and engineereing water collection system 3.b Staff qualifications
| Scope of Work B.8 | 20 | 20% | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 4 | Bid Ready Construction Specifications and Project summary: |
4.a STATEMENT shows the ability to produce bid-ready specification packages that adhere to OWNER’s template/requirements.
| 4.b Staff qualifications | Scope of Work B.9 | 15 | 15% | 75.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 5 | Project Summary: |
5.a STATEMENT presents a logical, thorough process for the design of the project.
| 5.b Identified obstacles are realistic and proposed solutions demonstrate ability of FIRM to overcome them. | Request for Statement of Qualifications | 20 | 20% | 100.0 | 0.0 | T | ||
| 6 | Examples of previous work |
6.a Examples of previous work such as investigation reports, maps, etc., hazard assessment, and earthwork designs show VENDOR’s capability to perform the required work at the highest quality level. Product quality and media are compatible with OWNER’s needs and hardware and software capabilities.
| 6.b Provide an example of previous work in related tasks where the client identified problems and how VENDOR resolved the issues. | Request for Statement of Qualifications | 15 | 15% | 75.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 100 | 100% | 500.0 | 0.0 |
The procurement officer shall award a contract to the qualified professional whose statement of qualifications was awarded the highest score under Subsection 63G-6a-1503(4) by the evaluation committee, at compensation that the procurement officer determines, in writing, to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit. If the procurement officer is unable to agree to a satisfactory contract with the highest scoring professional, at a price the procurement officer determines to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit, the procurement officer shall: (a) formally terminate discussions with that design professional; and (b) undertake discussions with the second highest scoring, qualified design professional. If the procurement officer is unable to agree to a satisfactory contract with the second highest scoring professional, at a price the procurement officer determines to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit, the procurement officer shall: (a) formally terminate discussions with that design professional; and (b) undertake discussions with the third highest scoring, qualified design professional. If the procurement officer is unable to award a contract at a fair and reasonable price to any of the highest scoring design professionals, the procurement officer shall: (a) select additional design professionals; and (b) continue discussions in accordance with the part until an agreement is reached.
Rating Scale
| 0 = Fail: the STATEMENT fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to missing information |
| 1 = Poor: the STATEMENT inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information |
| 2 = Unsatisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in an unsatisfactory manner |
| 3 = Satisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in a minimum satisfactory manner |
| 4 = Good: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST and in some respects exceeds them |
| 5 = Excellent: the STATEMENT addresses and exceeds all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST |
| 0 = Fail: the STATEMENT fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to missing information |
| 1 = Poor: the STATEMENT inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information |
| 2 = Unsatisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in an unsatisfactory manner |
| 3 = Satisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in a minimum satisfactory manner |
| 4 = Good: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST and in some respects exceeds them |
| 5 = Excellent: the STATEMENT addresses and exceeds all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST |
| In these descriptions, "addresses the requirements" means the VENDOR's qualificiations, approach, and understanding match the requirements of the project. |
| 0 = No response, no experience; not qualified |
| 1 = Minimal or inadequate experience; not qualified |
| 2 |
| 3 = Moderate experience; qualified |
| 4 |
| 5 = Extensive experience; highly qualified |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .